CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ7892653
Regular
Jul 22, 2016

PETER ALVAREZ vs. CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the order that joined the Office of the Attorney General as a party. The Board found the Attorney General was not a necessary party as the applicant clearly identified the California National Guard as their employer. Furthermore, the Board raised a jurisdictional issue, as National Guard service under Title 32, which may apply here, generally precludes state workers' compensation benefits. The case is returned to the trial level for an evidentiary hearing to determine jurisdiction.

Petition for RemovalOrder Joining Party DefendantCalifornia National GuardState Active DutyTitle 32Title 10Inactive Duty TrainingMilitary and Veterans CodeNachbaurJurisdiction
References
5
Case No. ADJ10351910
Regular
Aug 09, 2017

SELENA MCINTOSH vs. MILITARY DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether a California Army National Guard member injured during "active duty for training" under federal Title 10 is eligible for California workers' compensation benefits. The Board found that California Military and Veterans Code Section 340(b) expressly prohibits state workers' compensation benefits for service performed under Title 10. Therefore, the applicant cannot collect benefits under Division 4 of the Labor Code. While the applicant's VA benefits were denied, her recourse was to appeal that denial, not to pursue state workers' compensation.

Military Departmentlegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundTitle 10Labor Code Division 4Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJpsyche injurysexual assault
References
16
Case No. AHM 90917 AHM 90918
Regular
Jul 11, 2007

ANGEL SOSA vs. D.W. FOODS, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, VILLANOVA INSURANCE

This case concerns a dispute over reimbursement between an insurer, Everest, and the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), which is handling claims for a liquidated insurer, Villanova. The Board denied Everest's petition, upholding a prior award for reimbursement from Everest to CIGA. However, the Board granted CIGA's petition to amend the award to include Villanova Insurance as a party defendant.

CIGAEverest National Insurance CompanyVillanova Insuranceliquidationreconsiderationreimbursementbill review chargesjoint and several liabilitycumulative traumadenied due process
References
0
Case No. VEN 0115536
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

ROBERT FROELICH vs. CONTRACTORS LABOR POOL, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCATION, RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., GM NORTHROP CORP., NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD

This case concerns a dispute over workers' compensation liability following an industrial injury sustained by an employee who was a general employee of Contractors Labor Pool (insured by insolvent Reliance) and a special employee of GM Northrup Corp. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to reverse a prior finding, determining that National Fire Insurance Company's policy for GM Northrup Corp. constituted "other insurance." Consequently, National Fire Insurance Company is now liable for the applicant's benefits, and the California Insurance Guarantee Association is not liable as the claim is not a "covered claim."

CIGAReliance National InsuranceNational Fire Insurance Companycovered claimsother insurancegeneral employerspecial employerjoint and several liabilitypolicy constructionInsurance Code section 1063.1
References
0
Case No. No. 77 Civ. 4712 (MP)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1978

National Ben. Fund, Etc. v. Presby. H., Etc.

The National Benefit Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers and the National Pension Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers (the Funds) sued Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York, Inc. (Hospital) to recover allegedly owed contributions based on collective bargaining agreements. The Hospital moved to dismiss, asserting the action was barred by a prior arbitration award between the Union (District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees) and the Hospital, which concerned the same contributions and was dismissed due to the Union's unreasonable delay. The District Court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, held that the arbitration award had res judicata effect. The court determined that the Funds were either in privity with the Union or acted as third-party beneficiaries subject to the same defenses as the promisee Union. Consequently, the court granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Arbitration AwardRes Judicata DoctrineEmployee Benefit FundsCollective Bargaining DisputesSummary Judgment MotionHospital Labor RelationsUnion RepresentationERISA ClaimsPreclusionFederal District Court
References
19
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02981
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2021

Cruz v. National Convention Servs., LLC

Plaintiff David Cruz appealed a Supreme Court order that granted summary judgment to defendant National Convention Services, LLC, dismissing his complaint for injuries sustained at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in 2015. Cruz, an employee of NYCCOC, alleged negligence by Vincent Torres and Anthony Scura, general employees of NYCCOC, claiming they were special employees of National, thereby making National liable. The Supreme Court ruled his claims were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy doctrine, finding Torres and Scura were not National's special employees. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that National did not supervise or direct the carpenters' work, and NYCCOC remained responsible for their wages, assignments, and on-site supervision. Therefore, the court found, as a matter of law, that Torres and Scura were not special employees of National Convention Services, LLC.

Summary judgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive remedy doctrineSpecial employee doctrineAppellate reviewPersonal injuryNegligenceJavits CenterEmployer liabilityVicarious liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Foods, Inc. v. Rubin

Plaintiff National Foods, Inc. ("Hebrew National") filed a civil rights action against Rabbi Rubin, Director of the Kosher Law Enforcement Division of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Hebrew National alleged abuse of state investigatory powers, claiming violations of the due process, establishment, free speech, and commerce clauses, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The complaint detailed events including a 1985 inspection, a subsequent altered report, a 1987 fine, public statements by Rubin, and a 1989 subpoena related to Hebrew National's Indianapolis plant. Defendant Rubin moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that the allegations amounted to a state tort defamation claim. The court granted Rubin's motion, finding that Hebrew National failed to allege actionable constitutional deprivations under the "reputation-plus" standard for due process claims, presented no facts suggesting a theological dispute for the establishment clause claim, offered conclusory allegations for the free speech claim, and did not demonstrate a substantial burden on interstate commerce for the commerce clause claim.

Civil Rights Action42 U.S.C. § 1983Due Process ClauseFourteenth AmendmentCommerce ClauseEstablishment ClauseFree Speech ClauseMotion to DismissConstitutional LawState Official Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kolomick v. New York Air National Guard

The plaintiff sought to challenge a military personnel decision concerning his qualifications as a medical pararescue technician in the New York Air National Guard, pursuing a claim under the Human Rights Law after an unsuccessful internal discrimination complaint. The court considered whether civilian courts possessed subject matter jurisdiction over such military employment decisions. Justice O'Brien concurred with the decision to affirm the lower court's ruling, asserting that civilian courts lack jurisdiction to interfere with military personnel matters. This position is supported by established legal precedent and policy reasons emphasizing the military's distinct hierarchical structure and the need to avoid judicial second-guessing of professional military judgments. The opinion also discussed the inapplicability of anti-discrimination statutes like Title VII and the ADEA to military personnel without explicit legislative intent, further reinforcing the principle of non-interference by civilian courts in military affairs.

Military Personnel DecisionsSubject Matter JurisdictionJudicial ReviewNational GuardHuman Rights LawDiscrimination Complaint ProcedureMilitary LawFederal PreemptionCivilian Court InterferenceMilitary Efficiency
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yoda, LLC v. National Union Fire Insurance

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied defendant National Union Fire's motion to dismiss the complaint and granted plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment, declaring the insurer’s disclaimer of coverage ineffective under Insurance Law § 3420 (d). The appellate court unanimously modified this order, denying the cross motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal after discovery, citing the lack of conducted discovery. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of National Union’s motion to dismiss, noting lingering questions regarding the parties' intentions, the terms of the subcontract, and National Union’s delay in disclaiming coverage, which prevent a determination that Yoda and Riverhead were not additional insureds. Additionally, the employers’ liability exclusion in National Union's policy was found unavailing, as liability would be indirect if Yoda and Riverhead are determined to be additional insureds.

Insurance CoverageDisclaimer of CoverageSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissAdditional Insured StatusEmployers' Liability ExclusionAppellate ReviewDiscovery ProceedingsSubcontract TermsLabor Law Litigation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Casualty Co. v. Allcity Insurance

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which initially denied Allcity Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment and granted National Casualty Company's cross-motion for reimbursement. The underlying dispute involved National's request for one half of settlement and defense costs from Allcity, stemming from a personal injury action where the owner and general contractor were additional insureds on a subcontractor's general liability policy. The appellate court unanimously reversed the lower court's decision, granting Allcity's motion and denying National's cross-motion. The reversal was based on the antisubrogation rule, which precluded National from seeking recovery from Allcity, the subcontractor's workers' compensation carrier, as Allcity would not have been obligated to contribute to the settlement. Consequently, the complaint against Allcity was dismissed.

Summary JudgmentAntisubrogation RuleAdditional InsuredReimbursementDefense CostsGeneral Liability PolicyWorkers' Compensation CarrierAppellate DivisionInsurance LawPersonal Injury Action
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,973 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational